Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 27, No.

5, 1998

Swingin g: A Review of the Literatu re

Rich ard J. Jen ks, Ph .D.1

No review of the topic of swinging has been done in the last 20 years. This review
is intended to update the literature. Studies estim ating the incidence of swinging,
the demograph ic and person ality characteristics of swin gers, along with h ow
swingers are perceived by nonswingers are reviewed. Numerous theories explaining
this behavior have been presented with a social psychological m odel being the
prim ary focus here. Major reasons for getting involved in swinging, initiation into
the lifestyle, effects on marriage, and dropping out of swinging are also covered.
Finally, the literature dealing with some of the major problem s with swinging,
focusing on AIDS, are also discussed, along with the current state of swinging
and suggestions for future research.
KEY WORDS: swinging; comarital sex; mate swapping.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this pape r is to revie w the area of comarital se x, or

what is commonly referred to as swinging. Although single pe ople do en-
gage in the swinging world, the literature on this topic has limite d itse lf to
marrie d couple s. There fore, the definition of swinging as married couple s
exchanging partne rs solely for sexual purpose s (Buunk and van Drie l, 1989)
is e mploye d he re and the studie s focus on married couple s.
In addition to the focus on marrie d couple s in the re se arch, the re is
often a significant proble m with sample s. Like most are as of sexuality it is
difficult, if not impossible , to get random sample s. The refore, most studie s
reporte d in the lite rature have be en base d on small numbe rs of people
within a single city or community. Furthe rmore , studie s, with some excep-
1
Department of Sociology, Indiana University Southeast, Grant Line Road, New Albany,
Indiana 47150.

507

0004-0002/98/1000-0507$ 15.00/0 Ó 1998 Plenum Publishing Corporation

508 Jenks

Table I. Summary of Studies on Swingers

Control
Author Ye ar N Sample group?
Bartell 1970 280 Mid/Southweste rn whites No
Denfeld 1974 473 Counselors who had se en swingers as No
clients
Duckworth and 1985 30 Swing club members No
Levitt
Gilmartin 1974 200 Sexual freedom groups/re fere nce Yes
Je nks 1985a 406 Convention attendees/national Yes
swinge rs magazine
Je nks 1985b 342 Convention attendees/national No
swinge rs magazine
Je nks 1985c 406 Convention attendees/national Yes
swinge rs magazine
Je nks 1986 406 Convention attendees/national Yes
swinge rs magazine
Je nks 1988 60 Convention attendees Yes
Je nks 1992 88 National swingers magazine No
Levitt 1988 85 Swingers convention No
Murstein et al. 1985 60 Reference s/ads place d in swinge rs Yes
magazine
Palson and Palson 1972 136 Reference s No
Smith and Smith 1970 503 Sexual freedom groups/swingers parties No
Varni 1972 32 Ads No

tions, have faile d to use control groups. Table I lists the various studie s
conducte d in this area along with information relevant to sample size and
nature of the sample .
With the se proble ms in mind, what has bee n found re levant to the
size of the swinging population? Bartell (1971) place d the figure at 1% of
marrie d couple s, whe reas Cole and Spaniard (1974) conducte d a surve y in
a Midwe stern colle ge community and found that 1.7% had participate d in
swinging at least once . In a nationwide survey Hunt (1974) found that 2%
of the male s and le ss than 2% of the females admitte d to having eve r
swung, with a large proportion having engage d in it only once. It appe ars,
the n, that the incide nce of swinging among married couple s in the U.S. is
fairly low, around 2% . It must be e mphasize d, however, that these estimates
are date d; no curre nt estimates e xist.

CHARACTERISTICS OF SWINGERS

Much intere st has bee n shown in the characte ristics of swinge rs. For-
tunate ly, a numbe r of studie s have be en conducte d on this topic and the
results have bee n consiste nt.
Swin gin g 509

The majority of swinge rs fall into the middle and uppe r middle classe s.
Studie s have found swinge rs to be above ave rage in education (Gilmartin,
1975; Jenks, 1985b; Le vitt, 1988) and income (Jenks, 1985b; Le vitt, 1988)
and to be in profe ssional and manage ment positions (Jenks, 1985b; Le vitt,
1988) .
Studie s (e.g., Bartell, 1970; Jenks, 1985b) also reve al that the majority
(ove r 90% ) of swinge rs are White . Anothe r demographic characte ristic that
has bee n studie d is age . Nearly two thirds in the Jenks (1985b) study of
342 swinge rs drawn from atte nde es at a national swinge rs conve ntion and
reade rs of a national swinge rs magazine were betwee n 28 and 45; the mean
age was almost 39 ye ars. The mean age in the Le vitt study was 40.7 and,
in the Bartell study the y cluste re d in the 28¯34 age group.
Politically swinge rs are moderate to conservative and ide ntify with the
Republican party. While 50% vote d for Ronald Reagan in 1980 only 23.7%
vote d for Carte r (Jenks, 1986) . Bartell (1970) also reporte d many Repub-
licans in his sample of Midwe stern and Southwe stern swinge rs. There is
strong evide nce (Flanigan and Zingale , 1991) that highe r income , highe r
educate d, people vote Republican. As we have see n, swinge rs have above
ave rage income s and e ducations. Thus, the swinge rs may be voting the ir
class interests.
The ir political philosophie s are also in accordance with social class.
Whe n asked to labe l the mselves the plurality of swinge rs said “ moderate ”
(41% ), followe d by “ conse rvative ” (32% ), then “ libe ral ” (27% ) (Jenks,
1985a) .
O ne are a, howeve r, where swinge rs do se em to be libe ral is the are a
of se xuality. In a study of over 400 swinge rs (Jenks, 1985a) it was found
that the swinge rs were significantly more libe ral than a control group of
nonswinge rs on items dealing with are as such as divorce , pre marital se x,
pornography, homose xuality, and abortion.
Barte ll reporte d that the majority of his sample did not atte nd church
regularly. Fully two thirds of the responde nts in the Jenks ’ (1985b) study
had no prese nt religious ide ntification. This finding also is consiste nt with
othe r studie s. Gilmartin ’s (1975) figure for the swinge rs was 63% . When
aske d if the y had be en raised in a re ligious home ove r 68% said yes. Al-
though a little over 70% said the y did not currently atte nd church se rvices
in a typical month, the most fre quent response conce rning church atten-
dance when growing up was every wee k. Thus, swinge rs were raised in re-
ligious home but, some whe re along the path to adulthood, a majority gave
up the ir re ligion. This contrasts with the American population in general.
For example , 92% of Americans claim a religious prefere nce (Gallup and
Castelli, 1989) and only 4% can be see n as “ totally nonre ligious ” (Be zilla,
1993) .
510 Jenks

A profile of the swinge r, the re fore, is of a White , middle to uppe r

middle class pe rson in his or he r late 30s who is fairly conve ntional in all
ways e xce pt for her or his lack of religious participation/ ide ntification and
participate s in swinging. This conclusion, howe ve r, is at odds with the popu-
lar perception of swinge rs.

PERCEPTIONS OF SWINGERS

It is safe to say that swinge rs do not e njoy the be st of re putations in

our society. Gilmartin (1975) found that almost half of a sample of non-
swinge rs would mind if an “ othe rwise unobje ctionable swinging couple
move d into their neighborhoods ” (p. 55) .
To find out how swingers are perceive d, a surve y (Jenks, 1985b) was
conducte d where over 100 nonswinge rs were asked to give their perceptions
towards swingers. The se response s were then compare d with the response s
of over 300 swingers. Swingers were perceived as using alcohol, marijuana,
and othe r drugs far more than the swingers themselve s indicate d. In addition,
nonswinge rs overe stimated the pe rcentage of non-White s participating in
swinging, the proportion having a libe ral philosophy, and having a Democratic
party identification. When asked to place themselves and swingers on various
attitudinal items the nonswingers place d themselves away from where they
thought swingers would be on seven of the ten ite ms. Finally, almost one
half of swinge rs were seen as in need of psychological counse ling; in contrast
only 26% of swinge rs had undergone counse ling (Jenks, 1985b).
Swinge rs, the re fore, are ofte n pe rceive d by nonswinge rs as deviant in
respects remove d from their sexual behavior. The argume nt used by Jenks
to explain this is base d on a labe ling approach. Spe cifically, Be cker (1963)
and Hughe s (1945) have maintaine d that when the person is see n, or la-
beled, as having an unde sirable trait, then that person is also assume d by
people to have othe r unde sirable traits as well.
In summary, from the little rese arch that exists it can be conclude d
that (i) swinging is perceived as a de viant activity, and (ii) swinge rs are
perceived not only as “ specific ” de viants but as “ ge neral” deviants, that is,
deviating in not just one way (swinging) , but in areas totally unre lated to
the ir swinging.

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICS

What about the personality make up of swinge rs? Are they more (less)
authoritarian or alie nate d than nonswinge rs? What are the ir value s?
Swin gin g 511

Table II. Terminal Values in Orde r of Preferen ce

1. Self-respect 10. Exciting life
2. Family security 11. Comfortable life
3. Inner harmony 12. Wisdom
4. Happiness (Tie ) 13. World at peace
5. Mature love (Tie) 14. Social recognition
6. True friendship 15. Equality
7. Ple asure 16. World of beauty
8. Freedom 17. National se curity
9. Sense of accomplishme nt 18. Salvation

O ne study include d questions relevant to Authoritarianism, Machiav-

ellianism, Philosophy of Human Nature, Internal-E xternal Control of Re-
inforce ment, and Alie nation. Basically the results reve ale d that swinge rs
and nonswinge rs were not significantly diffe re nt on any of the se measure s
(Jenks, 1986) .
Swinge rs have also be en aske d to rank orde r a numbe r of te rminal
value s (Jenks, 1988) . Te rminal value s are those that refer to a preferable
end state of e xistence . This scale, deve lope d by Roke ach (1968) , has be en
give n to diffe re nt groups of pe ople : police officers, Calvinist stude nts, un-
e mploye d Whites and Blacks, and stude nts at a unive rsity. It has been
found, for example , that Calvinist stude nts ranke d salvation first. Jewish
stude nts, and those e xpre ssing no re ligion, place d the same value last
(Roke ach, 1969) . The re sults for the swinge rs are prese nted in orde r of
preference (Table II).
The swinge rs emphasize d the pe rsonal value s ove r the more social
one s. And, like the Jewish sample and pe ople with no religious identifica-
tion, salvation was place d last. Some whe re in the middle were those value s
which were pe rsonal but more achie vement-orie nted.
Duckworth and Levitt (1985) gave the MMPI to a sample of 30 swing-
ers. The MMPI is the most wide ly used measure of personality and e mo-
tional disorde rs and consists of approximate ly 600 items. They found that
half their re sponde nts scored be yond the normal range on their clinical
scale e valuations. The large st group (one sixth of all the subje cts) was high
on Hypomania, which consists of being hype ractive , often being irritable
and low on behavior re straint. O ve rall, however, the findings did not se em
to indicate grave psychological proble ms. The limite d numbe r of re spon-
dents and the fact that they were drawn from only one swinge rs’ club should
le ad us to treat this finding with caution howe ve r. Finally, in a study of
exswinge rs conducte d by Murstein et al. (1985) no evide nce was found that
swinge rs were particularly disturbe d individuals.
512 Jenks

INITIATION

According to a study by Henshe l (1973) , initiation into the world of

swinging generally take s place through the husband. She found that the
husband was the first to learn of swinging in 44% of the cases; the wife
le arne d first of swinging in only 16% of the instance s. O nce the initial dis-
cove ry had bee n made the re was a time lapse until they actually conside red
swinging, a second time lapse be twee n conside ring it and actually re aching
the final decision, and, finally, anothe r lapse be tween deciding and actually
becoming involve d.
In 68% of the cases it was the husband who made the original sug-
ge stion to swing. O nly 3 women (12% ) in Henshe l’s sample made the sug-
ge stion; the remaining 20% was a joint decision. Finally, 16 (64% ) of the
husbands, as oppose d to only 2 (8% ) of the wives, were re sponsible for
the final decision to swing.
Henshel, then, found the male to be the dominant force in the swing-
ing situation. O n the basis of her findings she argue d that swinging is a
male institution and the often used argume nt that swinging is an e galitarian
situation nee ds to be re assessed. These findings, however, were base d en-
tirely on the response s of only 25 re sponde nts in the Toronto are a. In ad-
dition, she intervie wed only the wife and, the re fore, a possibility for bias
exists.
Varni (1974) , who found that the male initiate d swinging in 15 of his
16 cases, also agre e s that swinging is a male institution. It should be note d,
howe ve r, that this has bee n a point of debate (Bartell, 1971; Palson and
Palson, 1972, Smith and Smith, 1970).

REASONS FOR SWINGING

Why do people be come involve d in swinging? What motivate s them

to e ngage in an activity clearly seen as outside the norms of our socie ty?
The reasons are many and varie d. Howeve r, there are a numbe r of major
reasons that have bee n found to be important.
O ne of the primary, if not the primary, reasons for ge tting involve d
in swinging is the varie ty of se xual partne rs and e xpe rie nce s. When asked
to indicate the major re ason for swinging, varie ty was name d by 26% in
one study (Jenks, 1986) .
The se cond most freque nt response (19% ) in the same study was that
of ple asure or e xcite me nt. This include d the ide a that it was, in one
swinge r’s words “ forbidde n fruit” providing the opportunity to participate
in a “ deviant ” life -style , to defy socie tal sexual norms.
Swin gin g 513

Table III. A Process Model of Swinging

Step 1: A strong intere st in and/or e arly involve ment in se x
Step 2: Pe rsonal characte ristics conducive to swinging: liberal sexual orientation, low
degre e of jealousy
Step 3: Passive phase characterize d by learning and talking about swinging, thinking
about participating
Step 4: Active phase characte rized by contact with swingers, possibility for withdrawal
Step 5: Commitment phase characterize d by actual involvement, socialization into
swinging and the developme nt of a rationale for swinging

The third most popular reason was the possibility of meeting ne w pe o-

ple. Thirtee n pe rcent gave this response . Bartell (1970) also found the in-
creased social life aspe ct to be important with his sample of swinge rs.
Voye urism has also be e n note d as a re ason for swinging. Swinge rs in
the Barte ll study indicate d that watching othe rs pe rform enable d the m to
e ithe r le arn ne w te chnique s which they use d whe n the y returne d to their
marital re lationshi p or to ove rcome any se xual inhibition s which the y
might have had with their spouse . Be yond the “ e ducational ” aspe cts ob-
se rving swinging activitie s provide s, e spe cially for the man, se xual thrills
and excite ment.
O the r re asons that have been cited include providing a means by which
the person can re capture one s’s youth, providing an ego lift for the person
in that the pe rson le arns that she or he is attractive and de sirable to people
othe r than one ’s spouse , and incre asing their inte re st in their own spouse
(Stinne tt and Birdsong, 1978) .

THEORY

A numbe r of the orie s have bee n deve lope d to explain swinging. The se
the orie s emphasize social variable s like middle class marginality (Walshok,
1971) , autonomy from one ’s family and the othe r institutions in our socie ty
(Gilmartin, 1974) , economic prope rty (Palson and Palson, 1972) , and male
socialization emphasizing sex (Bartell, 1970) .
The most recent theory argue s (Jenks, 1985c) that the se mode ls fail
to tell us why all marginal people , autonomous people , e tc., do not e ngage
in swinging. Base d on his finding s, along with a mode l pre se nte d by
Ste phe nson (1973) , Jenks deve lope d a social psychological model of swing-
ing (Table III).
The first step involve s e ithe r an inte rest in, or e arly involve ment in,
sex. Not eve ryone is inte reste d e nough to become a swinge r. As Stinne t
514 Jenks

and Birdsong (1978) have pointe d out, swinging require s a great amount
of time and energy. It se ems logical, therefore , that a person have this
strong interest in se x.
O n the othe r hand, the behavior, rathe r than the attitude , may be im-
portant. The basis of many theories (e .g., self-pe rception theory) is that a
person, who may not have give n much thought to some thing, or not have
a well-de ve lope d attitude , may e ngage in a be havior and then his or her
attitude change s or develops to match the be havior (Bem, 1972) . Gilmartin
(1974) argue d that this early involve ment in sex is crucial in paving the
way for an intere st in sexual participation and the swinging life -style .
Premarital involve ment, for e xample , give s the pe rson the e xpe rie nce
of participating in “ de viant ” sexual activitie s. Although significant percent-
age s of male s and females engage in pre marital sexual re lations today (All-
ge ier and Allge ie r, 1995) it is still “ officially ” conde mne d. And, for people
who gre w up in the 1940s or 1950s, pre marital se x was certainly interpreted
as going against the pre vailing norms (Bryant, 1982) . Having participate d
in a certain kind of activity more than like ly will increase the probability
of engaging in future , similar, type s of activitie s (Ajzen and Madde n, 1986) .
In othe r words, give n two individuals, one of whom has had extramarital
involve ment and one who has not, it might be expe cted that the forme r
would be more like ly to do it again. Gilmartin (1975) reporte d that, in his
sample of 100 swinging couple s, they starte d to date e arlie r, date d more
often, and were much more like ly to have had se xual intercourse e arlie r
than a control group of nonswinging couple s.
An active intere st or involve ment, however, is not enough; only certain
type s of individuals are susce ptible to swinging. Two personality charac-
te ristics are important here : a libe ral sexual pre disposition and a low degre e
of jealousy.
As indicate d above , swinge rs tende d to be politically mode rate and
conse rvative but more libe ral when we conside r various issues relating to
se xuality. In addition, Jenks (1985c) found that his sample of swinge rs
score d significantly lowe r on jealousy than did a control group.
At this point Jenks states that a mode l propose d by Stephe nson (1973)
become s re le vant. In this mode l the person first be come s involve d in a
passive phase . Here , the individual finds out about swinging and doe s some
thinking and talking about it. Next, come s the active phase . Here, contact
may be made with swinge rs. Finally, the commitme nt stage e ncompasse s
an actual involve ment in, and acce ptance of, swinging. The new swinge r
also be comes socialize d into the subculture , le arning the language , a ra-
tional for swinging, etc.
This pe rspective , a process model, he lps us to unde rstand why, within
certain groups of people (middle class, e tc.), particular individuals may be-
Swin gin g 515

come involve d. Finally, the mode l is argue d to pe rtain to longte rm, suc-
cessful swinging. If only some of these factors are prese nt, the individual
may only try swinging for a while and the n drop out of the scene.

PROBLEMS WITH SWINGING

Seve ral major proble ms have be en note d in the re se arch. Six of the
more common one s are discusse d.

Fear of Sexu ally Tran sm itted Diseases

Whe n aske d to indicate the bigge st disadvantage of swinging, the

numbe r one re ason give n in the Jenks ’s (1992) study was the fear of con-
tracting ve ne real disease . An e arlie r study by Murstein et al. (1985) re-
porte d that 33% of husbands and 10% of the wive s feare d V D.
More recently AIDS has come to the fore front as a re ason for not
swinging. In a 1992 study assessing the impact of AIDS on swinge rs it was
found, somewhat surprisingly, that the swinge rs expre ssed, ove rall, only a
mode rate fe ar of contracting the HIV (a mean score of 2.6 on a 5-point
scale ). Around 58% e xpre sse d at le ast some fe ar of contracting AIDS
(Jenks, 1992) . In contrast, a national surve y re porte d by Q uinle y (1988)
found that only 13% of responde nts re porte d at le ast being “ fairly worried ”
about the dise ase . Therefore , although the figure for the swinge rs is not
as high as some might expe ct, it is highe r than a random sample of Ameri-
can adults.
Almost 22% indicate d that they knew some one who had the AIDS
virus; howe ve r, swinging was not mentione d as the re ason why these people
had contracte d the virus. Those who kne w someone who had died of the
disease expre ssed more fe ar for the mselves (Jenks, 1992) .
O ver 62% said that the y had change d their behaviors be cause of the
AIDS scare . The two most freque ntly mentione d change s were being more
selective with whom they swung and practicing safe r sex (e.g., using con-
doms) . Almost 7% said the y had quit swinging because of the AIDS epi-
demic. Finally, one third said that they had not change d any of the ir habits,
and, of the se responde nts, more than a third said nothing, not e ven AIDS,
would ge t them to change .
It see ms, the refore, that the swinge rs see med to recognize the de adli-
ness of the disease, but many felt their sele ctivity in sexual partne rs and
practicing “ safe sex” lowe red their risk of contracting AIDS. In addition,
only a minority kne w some one who had die d of AIDS and, of those , the
516 Jenks

plurality indicate d that the pe rson was gay. It is possible that the se factors
combine d to create no more than a moderate fe ar of contracting the disease.

Fin din g Peop le

This involve s finding the right kind of pe ople with whom to swing.
Many people indicate d that it was difficult finding anothe r attractive couple
or anothe r couple with whom the y had some mutual intere sts (Jenks, 1986) .

Jealou sy

Although the swinge rs in the Jenks ’ (1985c) study were significantly

lowe r on je alousy than the nonswinge rs, this was not true of e ve ryone .
There fore, being je alous of one ’s partne r, being attractive to othe rs, and/or
having sex with othe rs was name d by 13% as a proble m (Jenks, 1986) .
Stinne tt and Birdsong (1978) also discusse d this factor as a proble m.

An xiety

Anxie ty stemming from the belie fs concerning se xual performance can

be a proble m in swinging. Bartell (1971) reported that only 25% of males
are able to achie ve an erection on a re gular basis at the large swing party.
And, while feeling sexually desirable is an advantage of swinging, the other
side of the coin is the anxie ty or fear that no one will se e him/he r as attractive .

Fear Abou t Public Exp osu re

Since swinging is a “ de viant ” activity one must always be guarding

against e xposure . This conce rn may run all the way from the ir childre n to
the ir ne ighbors and employe rs (Stinne tt and Birdsong, 1978) .

Tim e Factor s

Swinging often comes to dominate the person’s life (Stinne tt and Bird-
song, 1978) .
Swin gin g 517

EFFECTS ON THE MARRIAGE

What effe ct, if any, doe s swinging have on the swinge r’s marriage ?
Contrary to what many might be lie ve, positive e ffects have ofte n bee n
found. Gilmartin (1974, 1975) , for e xample , found that approximate ly 85%
of his sample of swinge rs felt that swinging posed no re al threat to the ir
marriage . In fact, the majority fe lt that their marriage had improve d.
Varni (1974) inte rvie wed 16 couple s who were active ly involve d in
swinging and found that half believed that swinging le d to an incre ased
feeling of warmth, close ne ss, and love betwee n the husband and wife . This
fe e ling was re porte d to be stronge st afte r swinging with some one else.
Le vitt (1988) found that almost thre e fourths indicate d that swinging had
a positive influe nce on their marriage ; only 6.2% indicate d a ne gative im-
pact. Similar re sults have bee n found by Barte ll (1971) , Smith and Smith
(1970) , and Palson and Palson (1972) .
Finally, Jenks (1986) found no re ason to believe that swinging was
particularly de trime ntal to marriage . Ove r 91% of the males and 82% of
the females indicate d that they were happy with swinging. Less than 1%
of fe male s were disple ased with swinging; no males e xpre ssed any unhap-
pine ss. And, whe n an analysis was done comparing their pe rception of the ir
re lations, both se xual and nonse xual, be fore and afte r swinging, it was
found that the majority e xpre ssed e ithe r no change or an improve ment.
It should be pointe d out that these studie s have asked the ir perceptions
of how swinging has affected the ir marriage s. Perceptions, of course , can
be quite differe nt than reality. Howe ver, Stucke rt (1963) has argue d that
perceptions, rathe r than actual behavior, are more important in determin-
ing marital happine ss and satisfaction.
While the research doe s point to the conclusion that swinging does
not affect the majority of marriage s in a negative way, the re are no doubt
couple s whose marriage s are negative ly e ffected. Levitt’s (1988) study found
that almost 17% fe lt that swinging had a ne gative impact upon the mar-
riage . Unfortunate ly, no study e xists analyzing factors that might have a
negative impact on the marriage . A study by Denfeld (1974) , howe ve r, did
look at married swinge rs who had droppe d out of the life-style . From this
we can get an ide a of some variable s that might play a role in decreasing
the fe asibility of swinging for couple s.

Drop p in g Out of Swin gin g

When the disadvantage s start to outweigh the advantage s ge tting out

of swinging becomes like ly. Denfeld se nt ove r 2000 que stionnaire s to coun-
518 Jenks

selors listed in a national and a California directory of marriage and family

counse lors. Approximate ly 45% of the que stionnaire s were returne d and
49% of the se re porte d they had se en at le ast one dropout from swinging.
The reasons give n by the swinge rs for dropping out were, in orde r of fre-
que ncy: Jealousy: 24% ; Guilt: 15% ; Thre at to the marriage : 15% ; Deve l-
opm e nt of outsid e attac hme nts: 12 % ; Bore dom with swingin g: 11 % ;
Disappointme nt with swinging: 7% ; Divorce or separation: 6% ; Wife ’s in-
ability to “ take it” : 6% ; Fear of discove ry: 3% . The point should be made
that these were couple s who were in the rapy and, therefore , may not be
represe ntative of all swinge rs who drop out.
The Murste in et al. (1985) study found the major reason for dropping
out of swinging to be the “ wife ’s inability to take it.” (p. 26) . Other conce rns
cited were fear of V D, guilt, fear of discove ry, boredom, and je alousy.

Current State of Swin gin g

Almost no re search on this topic has be en publishe d within the last

10 years. To get a more curre nt pe rspective a tele phone intervie w with Dr.
Robert McGinle y (personal communication , August 26, 1997) he ad of the
large st organization re lating to swinging, North America Swing Club As-
sociation (NASCA), was conducte d.
According to McGinle y, swinging, within the last 10 ye ars, has shown
a significant incre ase . The mailing list for NASCA, e .g., approximate d
12,000 te n ye ars ago; today it is around 30,000. Atte ndance at Life styles,
a yearly conve ntion which brings swinge rs from all over the country, had
a pre registration of 900 ¯1000 couple s with almost 2000 re gistrations on site.
He indicate s that atte ndance at this e ve nt has increased e very ye ar. The
late st conve ntion, held in Palm Springs, CA, is e stimated by the Chambe r
of Comme rce to have pumpe d more than $1.6 million into the local e con-
omy (R. McGinle y, personal communication , August 25, 1997) .
Although Lifestyles is the large st in attendance , the re are othe r con-
ventions that have annual meetings. Conclave , a conve ntion held in Chicago
draws approximate ly 300 couple s. O riginally he ld just once a year, it now
has expande d so that a second conve ntion is held in the fall of each year.
McGinle y e stimates that there were approximate ly 200 swing clubs in
existe nce 10 ye ars ago. Today the figure is approximate ly 400. One of the
bigge st change s which has come about, he states, is the growing sophisti-
cation of swing clubs. O nce started as hobby clubs the y now are a significant
source of re venue . As a conseque nce the club is now able to put money
back into the club and offe r more services to the members. Also, the clubs
have become more open in terms of adve rtising e xactly what they are.
Swin gin g 519

Swing-orie nte d magazine s continue to thrive . Some of the major ones

are Conn ection , which has two national publications and approximate ly 15
regional magazine s. Othe rs are Odyssey and Su ndance. McGinle y is quick
to point out that magazine s are not a major source for making contacts
with othe r swinge rs; rathe r, clubs are a more like ly source for contacts for
the swinging couple .
Anothe r change in the swinging scene has come about with the growth
of compute r technology, e specially with the Internet. Most swing clubs have
their own we b site . One of the advantages of the Internet, according to
McGinle y, is that it allows couple s to learn about swinging within the privacy
of the ir own home s rathe r than going to an adult bookstore , for example .
The International Couple s Network lists 91 differe nt swing clubs re pre-
senting 27 states. The two top states are California (19) and Texas (12).

CONCLUSION

Although many people in our society disapprove of this be havior and

believe that swinge rs are very unhappy and have unsatisfactory marriage s
the re is no evide nce for such a claim. Probably the be st way to conclude
a discussion on the e ffects of swinging is to quote Thio (1988) : “ We may
conclude that swinging is like a two-e dge d sword —it may swing in the di-
rection of positive conse quence s or in the opposite direction of negative
conse quence s. The nature of the conse quence s de pends more on the indi-
vidual who use s the sword than on the sword itse lf ” (p. 270) .
Curre ntly, we have no estimate of the incide nce of swinging. On the
one hand, give n the AIDS epide mic, along with the some what repressive
sexual e nvironme nt of the last fe w ye ars, we would pre dict that the inci-
dence would be lower. McGinle y state s that AIDS did, in the be ginning,
have an impact on how often swinge rs would attend swinging e ve nts but
this fear did not le ad to a de cline in membe rship. Swinge rs, he states, came
to re alize that AIDS was not everyone ’s dise ase as the media and gove rn-
ment portraye d it, but a disease of only certain se gments of the population.
The Jenks ’s (1992) study showing no high leve l of fe ar conce rning AIDS
see ms to ve rify this. McGinle y believe s that the gre ater proble m for the
swinge r was the herpes scare which lasted for a couple of years. If swinging
has decreased it may be more appropriate to attribute it to the repressive
environme nt rathe r than the AIDS scare.
Howeve r, there are signs that the swinging life-style is alive and well.
As indicate d, major conve ntions draw thousands of couple s e ach ye ar and
a perusal of the Inte rne t reveale d differe nt Web sites for swinging. O ne
such site , Inte rnational Swinge rs Union, include d tour package s for swing-
520 Jenks

ers and a discussion of swinging and the law. My impression is that, while
the re search on swinging has de creased, the incide nce has not. The way to
determine this would be to conduct a current study.
In addition to the que stion of incide nce it would see m fruitful to con-
duct a longitudinal study of swinge rs to discove r the factors relate d to the ir
continuing to swing ove r a period of time , what factors influe nce those
who drop out, and how long a couple stays in swinging.

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., and Madden, T. (1986) . Prediction of goal-dire cted behavior: Attitudes, intentions,
and perceived behavioral control. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 22: 453-474.
Allgeier, A. R., and Allgeier, E. R. (1995) . Sexual Interactions, D. C. Heath, Lexington, MA.
Bartell, G. D. (1970) . Group sex among the mid-Ame ricans. J. Sex Res. 6: 113-130.
Bartell, G. D. (1971) . G roup Sex, Wyden, New York.
Becker, H. (1963) . Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance, Free Pre ss, New York.
Bem, D. J. (1972) . Se lf-perception theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 6: 2-62.
Bezilla, R. E. (1993). Religion in America, Princeton Religion Research Cente r, Princeton, NJ.
Bryant, C. (1982) . Sexu al Devian cy and Social Proscription, Human Sciences, New York.
Buunk, B. P., and van Driel, B. (1989) . Alternative Lifestyles and Relationships, Sage, Ne wbury
Park, CA.
Cole, C. L., and Spaniard, G. B. (1974) . Comarital mate-sharing and family stability. J. Sex
Res. 10: 21-31.
Denfeld, D. (1974) . Dropouts from swinging. Fam . Coord. 23: 45-49.
Duckworth, J., and Levitt E. E. (1985) . Pe rsonality analysis of a swinge rs’ club. Lifestyles: J.
Chan g. Patterns 8: 35-45.
Flanigan, W. H., and Z ingale, N. H. (1991) . Political Behavior of the American Electorate (7th
ed.), CQ Pre ss, Washington, DC.
Gallup, G., and Caste lli, J. (1989) . The People ’s Religion: American Faith in the 90s, Macmillan,
New York.
Gilmartin, B. G. (1974) . Sexual deviance and social ne tworks: A study of social, family, and
marital interaction patterns among co-marital sex participants. In Smith, J. R., and Smith,
L. G. (eds.), Beyond Monogamy: Recent Studies of Sexual Alternatives in Marriage, Johns
Hopkins Pre ss, Baltimore.
Gilmartin, B. G. (1975) . That swinging couple down the block. Psychol. Today 8: 54-58.
He nshel, A. M. (1973) . Swinging: A study of decision making in marriage. Am. J. Sociol. 4:
885-891.
Hughe s, E . C. (1945). Dilemmas and contradictions of status. Am . J. Sociol. 50: 353-359.
Hunt, M. (1974) . Sexual Behavior in the 1970s, Dell, Chicago.
Jenks, R. (1985a) . A comparative study of swingers and nonswingers: Attitudes and beliefs.
Lifestyles: J. Chang. Pattern s. 7: 5-20.
Jenks, R. (1985b) . Swinging: A replication and te st of a theory. J. Sex Res. 21: 199-205.
Jenks, R. (1985c) . Swinging: A test of two theories and a proposed ne w model. Arch. Sex.
Behav. 14: 517-527.
Jenks, R. (1986) . A further analysis of swinging. Unpublished manuscript.
Jenks, R. (1988) . Rokeach ’s terminal values survey and swinge rs. J Psychol. Hum . Sex. 1: 87-96.
Jenks, R. (1992) . Fe ar of AIDS among swingers. Ann. Sex Res. 5: 227-237.
Kagan, J., and Segal, J. (1995) . Psychology: An Introduction, Harcourt, Fort Worth, TX.
Le vitt E . E. (1988). Alternative life style and marital satisfaction: A brief report. Ann.s Sex
Res. 1: 455-461.
Swin gin g 521

Murste in, B. I., Case , D., an d Gunn, S. P. (1985) . Pe rsonality corre late s of e x-swingers.
Lifestyles: J. Chang. Pattern s. 8: 21-34.
Palson, C., and Palson, R. (1972) . Swinging in wedlock. Society 9: 28-37.
Quinley, H. (1988) . The new facts of life: He terose xuals and AIDS. Public Opinion 11: 53-55.
Roke ach, M. (1968) . Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Roke ach, M. (1969). The role of values in public opinion research. Pu blic Opinion Quart. 22:
547-559.
Smith, J. R., & Smith, L. G. (1970) . Co-marital sex and the sexual fre edom movement. J. Sex
Res. 6: 131-142.
Stephe nson, R. M. ( 1973) . Involve me nt in de viance : An e xample and some theoretical
implications. Soc. Probl. 21: 173-190.
Stinnett, N., and Birdsong, C. W. (1978) . The Fam ily and Alternate Lifestyles, Nelson-Hall,
Chicago.
Stuckert, R. P. (1963) . Role perception and marital satisfaction — A configurational approach.
Marr. Fam . Living 25: 415-419.
Thio, A. (1988) . Deviant Behavior, 3rd e d., Harper-Collins, Ne w York.
Varni, C. A. (1974). An e xploratory study of spouse swapping. In Smith, J. R., and Smith, L.
G. ( eds.), Beyond Monogam y: Recent Studies on Sexual Alternatives in Marriage, Johns
Hopkins Pre ss, Baltimore.
Walshok, M. L. ( 1971) . The e me rgence of middle-class deviant subculture s: The case of
swingers. Soc. Probl. 18: 488-495.